ENVIRONMENTAL GRIDLOCK

Understanding the Stalemate in Conservation Policymaking

Paul W. Hansen
Executive Director
Izaak Walton League of America

To:
Multi-State Working Group Annual Conference
Grand Rapids, Michigan
June 20, 2005


Ideological and partisan rivals do have something in common—an exaggerated sense of their own righteousness, aggravated by an inability to recognize that the other side may not be evil incarnate with nothing to offer.  —Colbert I. King

As someone who has been stuck in the policymaking arena for the past 25 years, I appreciate being invited to speak to such a great group of professionals who have been doing the real work of protecting the environment in the most economically efficient way possible.  I really look forward to hearing your perspective on what works and what does not on the ground during the plenary session panels later today.

For 83 years, the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA) has been the voice of thousands of  ordinary Americans on conservation of our nation’s “soil, air, woods, waters and wildlife,” as stated in our motto. League policies are set by our members, who are politically diverse in their views –almost evenly divided between Republicans, Democrats and Independents – but united in their desire to see responsible care, stewardship and management of our nation’s forests, natural resources, environment and landscape. We have been alternately described as the nation’s greenest hunters, or its most well-armed environmental group.

Most League meetings start with our pledge:" To strive for the purity of water, clarity of air and the wise stewardship of the land and its resources; to know the beauty and understanding of nature and the value of wildlife woodlands and open space; to the preservation of this heritage and to our sharing in it.  I pledge myself as a member of the Izaak Walton League of America." 

Almost always, this is followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

These citizen conservationists bring a profoundly commonsense and practical perspective to environmental conservation issues. They are committed and experienced outdoor users, who have an intimate knowledge of the natural world and wildlife. Most hunt and fish, but many prefer hiking, wildlife observation, whitewater activities, or simply being outdoors.  

From my position as executive director of the League, I have been extremely privileged to spend a great deal of time with groups of colleagues that are as diverse as the League’s membership. For example, we are part of the “green group,” the forum of the leaders of the major national environmental groups, which I chaired in 2000. We are also part of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, the forum of the leaders of the major national hunting-conservation groups, which we helped start in 2000.

For six years 1996-2002, I was honored to interact with a broad group of forestry leaders as a member of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s (SFI) External Review Panel, which I chaired for three years. SFI is a great program started by the forest products industry to help improve forest management practices.  Today, I am the only conservation or environmental CEO to serve as a director of a Fortune 500 public company.  I am on the board of the Louisiana Pacific Corporation. This is a remarkable building products company has undergone a tremendous improvement in all aspects of its environmental performance.  It has shown how good environmental management can benefit the triple bottom line of environment, sustainability and profitability.

From the perspective of my contacts with these diverse groups, I see much common ground.  I see the same strong desire for responsible care, stewardship and management that I see from the Izaak Walton League’s diverse membership. My comments can be summarized as a plea for a fresh start to move on to the common ground that exists for most of us on so many of these issues – to be better listeners and to reject the voices of partisanship and polarization – so we can move past the gridlock that hampers durable progress on so many environmental issues that effect people’s lives.

While the League is nonpartisan, most of us believe that President Bush and many of today’s Republican leaders are out of step with the American public and much of their own party when it comes to environmental conservation. We see this in the polling data, where the Bush Administration routinely gets its lowest issue approval ratings on the environment – from Democrat, Republican and Independents.  We hear it from Republican leaders, like the former Governor of Michigan, former EPA Administrator Whitman, and others.  We see it in missed opportunities to balance enforcements with incentives.

Unfortunately, many environmentalists are also part of the problem.  The rhetoric and tactics of some environmentalists play a significant role in creating the current political polarization and stalemate on environmental policymaking that has caused gridlock for more than a decade. By choosing to let “the perfect be the enemy of the good,” some environmentalists choose to get nothing. They choose to oppose environmental progress. When we stop compromising in a bipartisan fashion, environmental progress stops as well. 

Environment is not a “liberal” cause; it is everyone’s cause. An overwhelming percentage of Americans care deeply about conservation of natural resources and the environment.  This includes strong majorities across all major demographic categories – ethnic, religious, racial, age, gender and political party affiliation.   

There are a variety of theories on the cause of the gridlock on such a popular issue: corporate shortsightedness, the influence of money over the legislative process, the alleged interest of Democrats in having environment as a perennial campaign issue, and the perceived antipathy of Republican leaders.  While the far right’s animosity to the environment is certainly an obstacle to progress, the polarizing tactics and strategies of some environmentalists are part of the problem as well.   

All of the major environmental acts of Congress that we now rely to protect our nation from shortsightedness and greed were imperfect bipartisan compromises that were built from the center.  During the 1990s, the major laws governing the fundamental environmental infrastructure of our nation – the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Superfund – were all due to be reauthorized.  All had been reauthorized before, some several times.  None of them have been reauthorized in the past 15 years.

During that time, progress halted on emerging issues such as climate change – which threatens the entire planet — and on old issues such as improving energy efficiency – which saves money, prevents pollution, and reduces dependence on foreign oil.  EPA tells us that 860 billion gallons of raw sewage still flows into our waterways. Our air is cleaner, but still not healthy.

For example, the Wilderness Act in 1964 was a compromise. It protected only a fraction of the land that qualified. It did set up an inclusive process for adding areas, and every President since 1964, including this one, has signed bills protecting more land.  Few environmentalists would argue that passing the Wilderness Act was a bad idea, but would they support this compromise if it were before them today?

In 1990, the last time the Clean Air Act was reauthorized, it was a compromise. Acid rain emissions were reduced by 40 percent, but not by the 60 percent that many scientists told us were needed.  Toxic mercury emissions were not controlled at all. It was not a perfect bill, but it reduced air pollution. Clearly, we are better off that it passed, but would this compromise be acceptable if it were being considered today? 

Prior to the 1990s, the leaders of the national conservation groups took the political support and public opinion that was available to them, and in most cases made the best deal possible.  The nation passed some key, though imperfect, legislation. 

In the early 1990s, this dynamic changed.  When Republican leaders attempted to roll back longstanding protections, national environmental leaders came under intense criticism from some local and more radical environmental groups for being too close to power, too accommodating, and too compromising. Radical voices on both sides were setting the terms of the debate and stalemate was the result.  This dynamic is reemerging today. Much of the public debate is appealing to the worst rather than to the best in people.

A lack of civility in the rhetoric and tactics used by some groups also has played a role in the stalemate of progress on many current environmental issues.  When communications about the environment are too extreme, too dire, or too partisan, large segments of the public tune out and dismiss the message. Presenting solutions, expressing concern about lost opportunities, or engaging Americans in “can do” thinking are better ways to recruit interest in conservation.

Results from the last election are a good case in point.  Voters in 121 communities in 24 states passed ballot measures to create $3.25 billion in new public funding to protect land as parks and open space. Since 1996, 1,065 out of 1,376 conservation ballot measures have passed in 43 states, raising over $27 billion in funding for land conservation. When given the chance, Americans vote directly for conservation solutions – even if it means a tax increase.  If you look at the campaign materials for these initiatives, you see little strident rhetoric and a lot of practical solutions.

One of the great tragedies of this gridlock is the fact that it keeps us from incorporating learning and reflecting the change in corporate culture into our environmental control infrastructure. Most of us recognize that many of the laws passed 25-30 years ago are too prescriptive and not adequately balanced with incentives.  Most company’s environmental ethics have advanced enormously.
My colleague Roger Ballentine, President of Green Strategies, Inc., points out that representative government should decide what results are expected, minimize the burdens of meeting those goals (in part by minimizing its own role), and render significant consequences if the goals are not met.  This is not the current model.  Some environmental advocates equate flexibility and concern for private sector costs as a weakening of environmental goals. A better model and a better result would be for governments to set tough requirements for all harmful pollutants, establish a reasonable but aggressive time period for compliance, perform relatively non-intrusive monitoring functions, reduce compliance costs with tools like emissions trading, but otherwise get out of the way.  Even if the goals and standards are tough, reducing the costs and obstacles to meeting them, while keeping the costs of failure significant, allows the private sector to figure out how to get to the desired result.

With the possible exception of lawyers and consultants, everybody wins when costs and burdens of meeting environmental and conservation goals are minimized.  In fact, reducing the costs and burdens allows the setting of even stronger goals and standards than would otherwise be possible.  Let’s limit direct governmental intervention to the discipline of true bad actors.  Today, the government says not only “what” the level of pollution should be, it dictates “how” to get there.

Enlightened companies like LP are finding that environmental compliance can help overall performance.  LP booked $13 million in cost savings to the bottom line in 2003 through its Environmental Management System.  Research suggests that those companies that out perform their peers on a host of environmental metrics also tend to out perform their peers on traditional economic metrics.  Corporate managers and investors are beginning to realize that environmental performance is about more than avoiding costly fines; it is a source of value.  There is also evidence that it is a factor in retaining and keeping good employees. Few want to work for a company that degrades the environment or endangers people’s health.

Americans care about their nation, its environment and its outdoor heritage.  The case for environmental protection is itself a great one, full of compelling examples of smart solutions that are good for the environment and economy at the same time.  Americans want durable and efficient environmental solutions.  They deserve a better commitment to finding those solutions from us all: the Congress, the Administration, business groups, conservationists, and the environmental community.